Be out of loop since haswells

Mmmmm zen is more related to bulldozer than thuban. Its more like amd made bulldozer cores into real cores, and added speculative execution+smt.

And so lately its been intel has superior single core performance while AMD has better multicore at the same price brackets. Zen2 is going to close that single core gap even more though, so on 7/7 intel might actually get priced out of their current value brackets

Roughly speaking, yes. I would probably give the slightest edge to Intel because of lower latency.
Well, any Ryzen probably would because they all have the same silicon. They would just have trouble besting the high-end unlocked Intel chips like the 8086K and 9700K.

I would say that it is within the margin of error, regardless, either one will be so fast that it will not matter for 99% of workloads.

The only tests where the difference will show are so ridiculously specific that they basically don't mean anything except that the tester did whatever he had to to find a difference.

The general consensus is that Intel has been better in games running at sub 1080p resolutions because of single core performance, and AMD has been better at over 1080p resolutions due to more cores being used as the resolution increases.

Yea yea, you know the deal, cite your source.
With all the shill faggots on this board I can't take your word.

>I would probably give the slightest edge to Intel because of lower latency
This is a very disingenuous argument, please do not regurgitate the talking point of shills, there are many valid criticisms of AMD, but this one is the stupidest one I've seen so far.

the difference in a dozen, or even a hundred NS is completely imperceptible to humans in any test you could ever hope to create.
It would be like saying you can see the difference between 100,000 and 120,000 FPS, it's a dumb conversation to even have.

I would argue that 100 FPS and 120 are noticably different
It's all theoretical because we don't exactly know their architecture, but there have been some tests with 2+2 vs 4+0 that compare more per-core cache to latency optimization, and some prefer one over the other while others prefer the opposite.

>cite your source.
I assume you are a newfag and you dont know how to use the catalog.
And in that regard I geve you one free spoonfeeding.

>I would argue that 100 FPS and 120 are noticably different
Can you not read?
>It would be like saying you can see the difference between 100,000 and 120,000 FPS
>100,000 and 120,000 FPS
>ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED-TWENTY THOUSAND

Google what a nanosecond is.

If it's all theoretical, then we shouldn't really be talking about it anyway, just focus on what can be proven from each product. Citing latency as if it's an issue, you might as well say that AMD's fairy dust isn't as good because it comes from space instead of the ocean.

Well that's kinda neat, hopefully the higher core count CPUs have similar scores.

I don't know man.

Attached: 1562084883731.jpg (718x379, 102K)

Attached: 1562084996668.jpg (719x568, 152K)

I have a feeling Lisa is going to be exposed with the decisions AMD are making right now. They're going for slightly lower prices than the competition but still just as good a little too early.

>user can't stop posting Far Cry

Good thing you're not the CPU then, doing billions of calculations per second.

Nanoseconds matter, user. We've seen it, we've benchmarked it. It's a real flaw, and every AMD fanboy (me included) is happy they managed to tighten the latency up. It's another step towards beating Intel in performance.

It's also another step to shut up the Audio dev guys who keep complaining about increased audio latency on Ryzen.

I wanna suckle on her tits

look at this fucktard

I have a feeling that if a genie granted a wish that made AMD CPUs have lower latency then you'd just find literally any other number you could and then you'd post it here endlessly wouldn't you?

What would you do if you ever ran out of things to reference? Like say, if Intel decided they wanted to be VIA tomorrow?

does she have a feminine dick

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking you to point to ONE case where this chart has caused problems for anyone?
Just give me one example is all I'm asking.

>3600 beats 9700k
>$200 vs $360

Intel BTFO

Attached: IMG_9118.jpg (719x568, 182K)

>if a genie granted a wish that made AMD CPUs have lower latency

AMDrones wish they could do this.

But it's not going to happen.

Wow, way to not answer the question.

Attached: 1537289659477.jpg (1846x1923, 607K)

>100 vs 120 is noticeably different
>t.doesn't understand fps brackets
From 20 to 30 to 40 to 60 there are noticeable jumps. This is once again true for jumps from 60 to 80 to 100+ to 144+, but these last couple of jumps are progressibly less noticeable. 40 to 60 and 60 to 80 both have noticeable uplift. But despite them both being a 20 fps difference, the former is way more noticeable. What matters is consistency. Even the highest end consumer gpu cannot churn out constant and stable 144+fps on every other AAA title @ultra even at 1080p. You can then backtrack and say that no one actually plays at ultra(nvidiaturds actually started doing it recently). But then you'd be a hypocrite if you dismiss someone else saying that manually tweaking config instead of using presets give better visuals and better performance. Learn what you're talking about before regurgitating lazy "theritical" takes from scripts.

These tests were made using a faulty BIOS, mind you. Don't worry

>All those nanoseconds add up to around .5 microseconds of added lag according to the 2700x benchmark of one of the intcel shills in this very thread
Oh no whatever shall I do!
>meanwhile shills literally don't understand the distinction of this lag from actual input lag

I get along just fine with a Core 2 Duo.

I'm not even sure how this got so big.
i.imgur.com/GFhwOCR.jpg

shut the fuck up you illiterate piece of shit

>t.buttblasted unironically illiterate pajeet shill from mumbai
"hello sar, I fix yuor router. Pls i am microsoft lv 10 technition. Pls sar, do the needful"

the same Brazilian cherrypicked fake graphics in every thread... now tell us that ryzen 2 can't reach 5ghz please

Attached: c5cc19da03a520cf.jpg (640x1280, 199K)

It's actually +69%

>9999x9999
Lmoa

Tell us how twice the memory latency doesn't matter.

cope

Attached: fuckyouintcel.png (1400x641, 180K)

Now post the memory latency graph.

Tell me how it does

>2x worse memory latency
>800mhz less clockspeed
>10% less performance
But get this
> the 9900k is 225% more expensive.

10% more performance is totally worth double the cost right?

Attached: IMG_9120.jpg (718x379, 52K)

im sorry but the ryzen 5 3600 is just better in every aspect.

Attached: 34.png (832x728, 37K)

Modern Intel is overpriced garbage, but Ivy Bridge was good. Right now, the pendulum will be on AMD's side, and it will swing back to Intel's in 5 years or so.

Amd delivered what they were showcasing.

Attached: KTRsnbR28AkbjxSe.jpg (1707x960, 216K)

>latencia
C-CHECK THE LATENCY GOYIM! T-THE ANSWER I-IS IN THE LATECY!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
CHECK IT GOY! STOP THIS ANTISEMITISM!

Attached: 1515175316605.jpg (691x771, 64K)

I'd say sooner, maybe 2021-2022. By then it'll be scary for them given AMD will most definitely be wide on chiplets and high on stacking.

>Ryzen 7 2700 has the same memory latency as a 9 year old intel running on DDR2

Simply unbelievable...

>you will shill for free to cope with your post purchase rationalization
Thank you for succinctly exposing the core of the endless Intel vs AMD vs Nvidia vs Apple threads.
So many autists are incapable of admitting they may not have gotten the perfect product, when it really, truly is insignificant.

it doesnt matter. even with bad latency the cpu is performing as promised by amd. its on par with an i5 9600k. After all both of the tests were done with an 2080 ti FE edition. I doubt that anybody even has that on this board and i can proof it to you. Go into any pcbg, desktop or battlestation thread. you will not see $1000 hardware components. Therefore these benchmarks will never matter since you everybody here and 99% of all computer users, are simply gpu bottlenecked before a cpu one.

Attached: sharks.png (800x800, 361K)

Maybe so. It's the same thing that was happening with the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4. AMD has a seemingly unstoppable option, but Intel can turn it around and make something good like the Core 2 Duo/Quad again. I'm just glad that AMD is bringing back competition to the CPU market. If only they'd do the same for the GPU market.

Also add this dude Is latency the new buzzword for shills? Or just samefag?

Attached: 1560141571607.jpg (398x376, 16K)

>(allegedly) double the latencia
>only 15% less fps in a worse case scenerio
>instead of the kiketel chip having double the fps
Is this ryzen magic? Wtf I love ayymd now.

why did you quote me? i just replied to latencia-shill, i already know that those graphs are bullshit

Keep posting crying wojaks in all caps bruh it totally makes it look like you're not seething with rage.

youtu.be/Da8GV9qhmO0
Intel grew complacent.

Why should he eage? He isn't the ine rhat'll have to dill his quota by 7/7, kek.

Seething and shaking so hard in anger that he can barely type.

you have to understand them, it's only 5 days to 7/7 when their dreams will be utterly crushed (again) and they know it